241 réponses à ce sujet

[Felene]

Mesina2 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Eivuwan wrote...

Artistic integrity is just an excuse for not correcting your mistakes.

Sparatus wrote...

lasertank wrote...

Artistic Integrity is simply a convenient excuse for irresponsibility.

It feels like this more and more.

Nuff said.

[sHELLYEA]

Nice OP! I have talked about this very same subject with my friend as well.

[Atrabilious]

Thomas Hardy also rewrote the ending of The Return of The Native.

Which is a great book, on an unrelated note.

Don't see why Bioware can hide behind the notion of Artistic integrity. They can't, and the recent forbes Q&A session on facebook pretty much reeled off all the reasons why.

[LegendaryBlade]

Artistic Integrity is just a buzzword pro-enders use to defend the ending. It's literally an empty argument. It's also one that, the more you abuse it the more people tear it apart until nobody buys it anymore.

[Hobbyman]

jb1983 wrote...

In some ways you can and in some ways you can't. 

Movies have the benefit of having focus groups. Thus, if the focus group hates something, the studio requires the artist to change that something.

Look at Dodgeball. It was supposed to end right after the Cobras won and the Average Joes lost. The focus group HATED that, so the, "Aha, your foot crossed the line!" part was added in.

This actually happens to almost every single movie we see. 

Games and books don't have the luxury of focus groups. So when the audience reacts negatively, things end up changed. 

Art is fluid, not absolute, so artistic integrity only works in conjunction with listening to your critics. 

Not entirely true. As far as video games are concerned all game production gompanies have at least a few people concerned about what the target group of the game is going to be and why. This happens so the designers will be more streamlined on what should, and should not be left out of the game, and gives a strong guideline for the game production. So, in that effect, since the target group of ME3 says the ending sucks, then it is the company's obligation to make it better or lose a big portion of their target group's commitment into buying further games.

Modifié par TekMage, 24 mars 2012 - 05:33 .

[LPPrince]

Pericles Redstorm wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

If video games were art, publishers and developers would have no problem if their work didn't make them a single penny in profit.

Lets be honest- video games are a product, made to be sold for a profit.

In this case, the whole, "video games are art" argument gets flung out the window.

This on so many levels! I belive art goes into making the game, but the final prduct itsself is not. Also would like to add to what you stated, If they were art then there would be no deadlines and nothing would be rushed.

If video games were art, they'd take their sweet time crafting it till perfection.

I'm much more inclined to consider Dragon Age Origins a piece of "art", then Dragon Age 2, for example.

[Seival]

Lanceare wrote...

J. R. R. Tolkien released several iterations of The Lord of the Rings in order to improve things, clarify and fix problems. He also went back and rewrote parts of The Hobbit years later in order to bring it in line with the Lord of the Rings (i.e. fix plot holes and provide foreshadowing for the LotR). The version of The Hobbit we have now is not the version that was originally published, and it's better for it.

Eight years after killing off Sherlock Holmes, Sir Aurthur Conan Doyle went back and retroactively un-killed him based on overwhelming fan feedback. Then he wrote 'The Hounds of the Baskervilles'. His work, and he, benefited greatly.

CD Project Red, the developer behind the amazing 'The Witcher' and 'The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings' (which were already excellent) have retroactively made major changes to both games; changed content, added content, changed and added dialog, changed and added cut-scenes - based on interaction with fans and their own artistic integrity and desire to make the best games possible.

In The Witcher 2 they have both added a new beginning to the game as well as changed/expanded the ending of the game, based upon fan feedback. And they've done it all at no cost to the player. If you bought the game, you get all updates to the game, all new content and DLC, for free.

As a result they have some really excellent games and have garnered a great deal of love from the community for having such integrity and love for the fans.

Fans and critics alike have praised CD Project Red for all of this. Yet over this issue with Bioware and Mass Effect 3 people do a 180 and claim that if they fix the problems with the very unworthy ending to ME3, they are somehow violating some 'artistic integrity'.

False. Hypocrites.

Mass Effect could be a masterpiece. Instead it is a very good series with a terrible ending. The right thing to do, for the integrity and legacy of the series and for the fans is to redo the ending of ME3 as well as fix a couple of other missteps in the game (the Rachni being present no matter what you do, Tali not getting a proper reveal, etc.).

After all, Bioware did this for the Mass Effect novel - Mass Effect: Deception. Or maybe they should have just left it full of plot holes and inconsistencies...

Agree.

By the way. Do not forget about one more example of ending remaking: I Legend movie. There are two completely different endings in one DVD. You can choose the one you prefer.

[cuzsal]

lasertank wrote...

Artistic Integrity is simply a convenient excuse for irresponsibility.

[sargon1986]

lasertank wrote...

Artistic Integrity is simply a convenient excuse for irresponsibility.

Or for producing crap.

[Alraiis]

I think there's a fine distinction here.

Obviously, art changes. It changes constantly before it is presented, and it often changes afterward, whether through mundane changes like sculpture restoration, film remastering, or bug fixing in games, or through larger changes like director's cuts or retroactive continuity. I really don't think a single person is arguing otherwise, and if they are, then yes, they are provably wrong.

However, I think the pieces about "artistic integrity" and other nebulous concepts has to do with something different. It's about the idea that the author is caving in, compromising their vision to "sell out" or what have you. This can, in my opinion be a horrible thing.

"Can" is the operative word.

The point to be made here is not just "look at all these times it happened," but to add that artistic revision is made for a variety of different reasons, and it's not always a bad choice. Clean up your film's language to please a corporate sponsor? Maybe your work becomes watered-down trash, or maybe it reaches more people. Alter your painting to meet the expectations of your patron? Maybe a piece of your artistic soul dies, or maybe improving the working relationship allows you to create more art and leads to personal fulfillment?

Make changes to your ending to please your fanbase? Maybe lose some respect from one extreme wing of the community of game developers, or maybe you gain the goodwill and support of a significant group of players.

Whether or not to change art should ultimately be the artists' choice to make, and I'm sure the choice is never easy, but it's always worth consideration. To say it's never the right call is crazy.

Modifié par Alraiis, 24 mars 2012 - 05:42 .

[leapingmonkeys]

Real artists accept feedback and adjust so that their art produces the desired emotional impact on the viewer.

Bioware used to say that they were "co-creating" ME with its customers.

Now they try to say that art can never be changed, that they own it, and anyone who complains is an entitled whiner.

Clearly someone at Bioware got a little too big for their britches and then got sufficient internal political power to run rough shot over other people's objections. There is no way that no one at Bioware objected to the ending of ME3 because ME1 and ME2 obviously understood that this was a game and that allowing the customer to become the hero who overcomes impossible odds was a critical aspect of making any RPC style game a success. Someone had to have pointed out that ME3 was ignoring prior actions and railroading everyone into an ending that was nothing more than three different shades of nihilism that provide no form of victory for the customer. Clearly, those objections were ignored by someone who had the ego and political power to do so.

Modifié par leapingmonkeys, 24 mars 2012 - 05:38 .

[zarnk567]

cuzsal wrote...

lasertank wrote...

Artistic Integrity is simply a convenient excuse for irresponsibility.

Well in Bioware's case yes it is, but this is not the case for everything.....

[Thalorin1919]

I like how a lot of you guys had no qualms with calling ME2 art, but when the ending of ME3 came, you had no issue going to the position that "video games are a product, not art".

[Phearmonger]

usmack5 wrote...

Don't forget that an ending change has literally been done in Fallout 3 already....though Fallout 3's endings didn't have half as many plot holes or disappointing aspects as ME3's endings do. Bethesda releasing ending-changing DLC AND a bunch of great new content reassured fans that their faith in Bethesda was well placed. Bioware must do this to restore the fan loyalty it once had, although it will take me a while to fully trust them again (if I ever). The difference is that Fallout 3's original ending was acceptable and Bethesda changed it ANYWAYS, while ME3's ending is a complete travesty and Bioware is having reservations on what to change...lame.

Another difference was that Fallout 3's ending was fairly poignant as it originally stood (submitting yourself to lethal levels of radiation to save everyone) and was completely trivialized with Broken Steel (well, it turns out it wasn't actually lethal, it just put you in a coma for two weeks, but you're fine now, go kick some more Enclave ass. Oh, by the way, you never really got rid of the Enclave, either.) Don't get me wrong; I loved Broken Steel, but they took an ending that was pretty good and actually made it into a plot hole.

[leapingmonkeys]

Thalorin1919 wrote...

I like how a lot of you guys had no qualms with calling ME2 art, but when the ending of ME3 came, you had no issue going to the position that "video games are a product, not art".

Who is calling ME2 art?  Not I.  The whole "art" defense is Bioware's lame defense.  The customers have been very clear that what they want is a game which allows for a conclusion that is inline with ME1 and ME2 - namely that Shepard wins and lives to see another day.

[Hobbyman]

Alraiis wrote...

I think there's a fine distinction here.

Obviously, art changes. It changes constantly before it is presented, and it often changes afterward, whether through mundane changes like sculpture restoration, film remastering, or bug fixing in games, or through larger changes like director's cuts or retroactive continuity. I really don't think a single person is arguing otherwise, and if they are, then yes, they are provably wrong.

However, I think the pieces about "artistic integrity" and other nebulous concepts has to do with something different. It's about the idea that the author is caving in, compromising their vision to "sell out" or what have you. This can, in my opinion be a horrible thing.

"Can" is the operative word.

The point to be made here is not just "look at all these times it happened," but to add that artistic revision is made for a variety of different reasons, and it's not always a bad choice. Clean up your film's language to please a corporate sponsor? Maybe your work becomes watered-down trash, or maybe it reaches more people. Alter your painting to meet the expectations of your patron? Maybe a piece of your artistic soul dies, or maybe improving the working relationship allows you to create more art and leads to personal fulfillment?

Make changes to your ending to please your fanbase? Maybe lose some respect from one extreme wing of the community of game developers, or maybe you gain the goodwill and support of a significant group.

Whether or not to change art should ultimately be the artists' choice to make, and I'm sure the choice is never easy, but it's always worth consideration. To say it's never the right call is crazy.

Indeed, and most of the time all these reasons come down to only one word: Pride......Since the days of the great painters of the Renaissance period, the biggest problem and flaw of artists was the hard time that they had to swallow negative criticism for their works. Same goes for video game designers. The hardest thing that a designer will face is the negative criticism of the target group. It's not an easy thing to accept and how you handle it shows, largely, your feelings towards the player base and your character.

Modifié par TekMage, 24 mars 2012 - 05:41 .

[Alraiis]

Thalorin1919 wrote...

I like how a lot of you guys had no qualms with calling ME2 art, but when the ending of ME3 came, you had no issue going to the position that "video games are a product, not art".

Find a specific person who switched perspectives. If you're calling out an entire community for having, within its numbers, people with contradicting opinions then you're not exactly proclaiming anything unexpected.

It's not a hivemind, you know.

[BDelacroix]

For some people, history only started the day they were born.

[Seracen]

I posted this elsewhere too, but I find it amusing that nobody is calling "artistic integrity" on the changes they are apparently making to the ME:Deception novel.

Also, a previous poster mentioned changes made to various versions of Blade Runner.  Well, the original Star Wars screenplays were rewritten as well, back in the day, because they were too similar to Akira Kurosawa's works. If we compare the endings of ME3 and Deus Ex, this is no different a situation.

Furthermore, look at the TV series Dexter. The books that this series is based off of were RETCONNED in book 4 or so, because of how confusing and broken the storyline had gotten.

Still, a great series, and the fact that we are here is a testament to how moving and masterful the ME games are as a whole.

Modifié par Seracen, 24 mars 2012 - 05:49 .

[Heather Cline]

Yeah the whole Mass Effect is art and shouldn't be changed is a load of crap. It's been proven that games, books, movies, and so on and so forth can and will be changed. There is no reason not to and there is already precedence set. So frankly the defense of the supporters of the end of the game and Bioware have no leg to stand on.

Modifié par Heather Cline, 24 mars 2012 - 05:50 .

[Rockpopple]

BioWare's already signalled that they're going to expand and clarify the endings. You don't know exactly what that means, because you don't have the script in front of you, but I would imagine it's not that different than what Bethesda did - which they charged money for.

So there's no hypocrisy involved. You've already won. You should take a victory lap instead of push your luck.

[SaladinDheonqar]

Didn't Bioware or one of its people admit that the fans helped in shaping the story of ME? I really can't see how they or anyone else can justify the ending by simply slapping an 'artistic integrity' sticker on it. The OP presents a nice case of precedents of 'artists' listening to their patrons and making changes.

[Heather Cline]

Rock we haven't won anything. All they've said is they will explain the ending/endings and provide closure. The fact is they promised us during their ad campaign 16 different endings that varied wildly based upon our decisions through the entire trilogy. They failed to provide that. Why would I or anyone else want an explanation/closure DLC when only some want that and many others want the original endings promised with the possibility of one happyish ending and various shades of grey to black for other endings? No I'm not going to shut up or take this as a victory because it's not until we see the so called DLC final product.

[movieguyabw]

Silly OP, those aren't art.  Only Bioware games are art.

[RunicDragons]

This thread deserves a bump...